Pre-registration
Chile's 1981 pension privatisation (replacing PAYG with mandatory individual AFP accounts under Decreto Ley 3500) delivered domestic-savings-rate persistence near 20% of GDP through 1985-2010 and capital-deepening above LatAm peers, but produced median replacement rates below 40% by 2010-2020 due to coverage gaps among informal workers, motivating the 2008 solidarity-pillar addition (Pilar Solidario) and the ongoing 2019-2024 reform debate. The descriptive claim documents both the forced-saving mechanism's success on macro-savings and its insufficient delivery on individual adequacy.
Falsification criterion — what would disprove this
This hypothesis is considered falsified if:
Refuted on the savings arm if CHL gross savings 1985-2010 average is below 18% of GDP. Refuted on the adequacy arm if median replacement rate 2010-2020 average exceeds 50%. The dual-outcome descriptive claim requires both observed gaps.
formal test & threshold
test: descriptive_dual_outcome_threshold_check threshold: chl_savings_85_10_avg >= 18pct AND chl_replacement_rate_10_20_avg <= 50pct
Method
- Template
descriptive- Fixed effects
country, year- Clustering
country- Sample
- 7 countries · 1970 – 2022
- Evidence type
- descriptive
Descriptive panel comparing CHL macro-savings and pension-adequacy trajectories with LatAm peers 1970-2022. Structural break test at 1981 for savings; replacement-rate level comparison post-2000 when OECD harmonised data are available. No causal counterfactual is constructed.
Data
| Variable | Source | Transform |
|---|---|---|
gross_savings_share_gdp outcome | world_bank_wdi:NY.GNS.ICTR.ZStier 2 | level |
pension_replacement_rate_median outcome | oecd:DSD_PENSIONStier 2 | level_pct |
elderly_poverty_rate outcome | oecd:DSD_IDDtier 2 | level_pct |
gdp_per_capita_real control | world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2 | log |
dependency_ratio control | world_bank_wdi:SP.POP.DPND.OLtier 2 | level |
informal_employment_share control | world_bank_wdi:SL.UEM.TOTL.ZStier 2 | level |
● ready · ● pending · ● reconstruct-needed
Strongest opposing argument
Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.